The Court Blog

The Supreme Court will be attempting to determine when to make a ruling on whether or not same sex marriage is constitutional. They will not be deciding the issue in this closed door meeting but they will be trying to decide on when to decide. Apparently this is crucial in how their decisions affect public opinion.

 

For instance, a Supreme Court ruling in 1967 struck down bans on interracial marriage, however at the time there were only 16 states that still had laws against it, and it was 13 years after segregation had been ruled unconstitutional. When the Court ruled in 1973 on a woman’s right to an abortion, it triggered the “right to life” movement.  More recently in 2003, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy stuck down a Texas law making gay sex illegal in his majority opinion regarding Lawrence v. Texas. This ruling was cited a few months later in Massachusetts in support of same sex marriage.

 

Currently, nine states have given same sex marriage legal status as of the last election; Maine, Maryland and Washington being the most recent.  Most states (41) still do not recognize same sex marriage. When the Supreme Court looks at this issue or any constitutionality issue, there can be an impact on public reaction. The question for the Supreme Court is do they rule on the question now while public opinion is in favor or do they wait for more the states to catch up with their own legislation.

 

Usually my opinion would be that it seems like the Supreme Court is ruling on issues that should not be an issue. This is a “bedroom” issue that I don’t feel is the Supreme Court’s (or any other court’s)  business; however, it does spill over into rights to access services such health insurance and the ability to invest together without having to go through extreme legal maneuvering.

 

The Justices will no doubt be making a ruling that could very well be overturned sometime in the future but just as their 1896 “separate but equal” facilities was deemed constitutional for its time; it was still overturned in a 1954 decision. This too will reflect our current trends as do most of their decisions.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-gay-marriage-20121125,0,511659.story

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/supreme-court-to-begin-weighing-gay-marriage-cases.html

 

 

 

The Electoral Blog

I would like to address Clay Patterson’s editorial about the Electoral College. In it he states he has issues with this system because he believes it is outdated and was used only to protect us from electing the “wrong president due to incompetence.”  However, technology does not remove our incompetence. I believe that it may even increase it. In today’s technological society there is so much information and so many opinions posted on the internet, for instance, that you can find just about anyone to agree with any statement made. Technology does not make us smarter; it is still hard to know what are truths and what are fibs.

Our nation began during the Age of Enlightenment; we were not a nation of illiterate bumpkins. Most people were either fresh off the boat coming from the repressive regime of England or the first (maybe second) generation born on American soil. These people saw an opportunity to create a new government that truly was for the people, and by the people. They fought and died for this concept.

The fact is the United States is not a democracy, it is a republic. This means we elect representatives to represent our interests. A republic is a limited, representative-type government that follows a Constitution which is changeable by the people through amendments. A democracy, on the other hand, is basically rule by majority which is omnipotent. Individuals and any group of minority individuals would have no protection against the unlimited power of the majority. It has, in some cases such as the ancient Greeks, degenerated into mob rule. The Framers of the Constitution condemned the “excesses of democracy” and prevented the majority from getting too much power by allowing for the unalienable rights of the individual in the Constitution.

It is actually pretty amazing that people over 250 years ago had the foresight and presence of mind to consider that as time went by, society would change in ways they had yet to even imagine, and yet the government they established is still in the position to give all individuals, minorities and majorities alike, the same protection and rights. This is proven in the Amendments that gave black men, and then later women, the right to vote. Both of these occurrences were not foreseen by the Framers and yet when the time came, we were able to enact these Constitutional changes. That is the power of a Republic. If we were truly a democracy, the “white, male, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant” majority would have over-ruled the amendments that gave blacks and women the vote.

www.politifeist.com/Definition_for_Republic

Losco, Joseph and Ralph Baker. AM GOV 2012. 12/11

 

The Numbers Blog

I thought about something I read (I think it was in the textbook) about when we have Election Day, and I wondered why we would have it in the late fall when a good part of the country is dealing with foul and often dangerous weather conditions. It makes you wonder why we don’t have our election during the time of year, like say spring, when people don’t mind standing in a line for a couple of hours to do their patriotic duty. The weather is nicer then; most voting places are at schools, so you can take the kids and make an afternoon of it. And why have it on Tuesday? That’s the middle of the week (practically) and most people have to be at work (except the 12+% of us who are unemployed). So I wondered who picked these dates.

I learned that when our Framers first set up our voting schedule they had to consider the agrarian society they were dealing with. Most people lived on farms and had to travel some distance to get to their polling places. They couldn’t leave during planting or harvest time so November was the best time before the heavy snows hit. It also meant they couldn’t hold it on Monday since no one could travel on Sunday (a day of rest and all). So that meant everyone traveled on Monday and could vote on Tuesday. They would probably then spend the evening in the pub after the polls closed while the votes were tallied, celebrated or consoled themselves with ale on Wednesday, slept off the ale on Thursday, traveled home on Friday, caught up on the farm chores on Saturday to be ready to sit in the pew on Sunday. Realistically speaking, it could take a whole week for someone to cast a vote in the 1800’s.

Fortunately for us, it’s not that challenging anymore. Most of us have a polling place within a few blocks of our home, and can stop by on the way home from work. Sure there might be a bit of a line but it’s an opportunity to get to know your neighbors. Many of us have the option of mailing in an early ballot as well. In any case it doesn’t take nearly as long as it did in the early years of our Republic. I would say we are truly blessed with the technologically advanced system of we have for casting our vote, hanging chads and all.

And yet according to ABC news, who got their information from the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, “2012 voter turnout (was) at 57.5% of all eligible voters, compared to 62.3% who voted in 2008 and 60.4% who cast ballots in 2004.” One hundred twenty-six million people did vote and a whopping ninety-three million eligible voters did not! Shame on them!

http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/election-day-first-tuesday-november.html

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/election-results-2012-voter-turnout-lower-than-2008-and-2004-report-says